Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review facilitates editors to make decisions regarding publication and communicating
to authors for improvement in their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of
formal scholarly communication and knowledge dissemination. Our editorial board consists
of eminent & distinguished experts of their field from all across the globe. The full names
and affiliations of our august reviewers of DIAS Technology Review have been given in
Heartiest Thanks to our Reviewers! in our journal. New reviewers are added to the list from
time to time. 

Promptness and Confidentiality

The review procedure generally takes two-three weeks’ time. Any invited referee who senses
some constraint to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt
review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to
review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted by the Editor-in-Chief. 

Since the manuscripts received for review are confidential documents, these must be treated
with utmost privacy and must not be shown to or discussed with others except authorized by
the Editor-in-Chief. Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be
used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and
not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who
decline the review invitation

Standards of objectivity 

Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate. Reviewers should not have any conflict of interest. 

Acknowledgement of sources 

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in
previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should
also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under
consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have
personal knowledge.